Donald Trump has often brushed off climate change as a distant or harmless issue, treating global warming as a political talking point instead of a public health problem. That stance now stands against a growing set of studies that link rising temperatures to early deaths and the spread of infectious diseases. The science is no longer abstract; it tracks how human-driven warming is already changing who gets sick, who dies and where new health threats appear.
When a political leader calls climate change harmless, they are not just arguing over computer models or energy rules. They are pushing back against evidence that connects greenhouse gas emissions to real bodies in real places, from workers collapsing during heat waves to families facing new mosquito-borne illnesses in regions that never had to worry about them. The gap between that rhetoric and the data is not just a matter of opinion. It is a measurable difference in risk.
Heat deaths tied directly to warming
One clear test of whether climate change is harmless is simple: are people dying because of it today? A peer-reviewed study published in Nature Climate Change used climate attribution methods to compare observed temperatures and deaths with a modeled world without human-driven warming. By examining data from recent warm seasons across many countries, the authors estimated how many heat deaths would not have occurred in a cooler climate without human influence.
The study reports that 37.0% of warm-season heat-related deaths in the locations it examined are attributable to human-caused climate change, based on data from the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In some cities, the share of deaths linked to warming rose above 67%, showing that the impact is not evenly spread. The same research describes how this kind of attribution has now been demonstrated across at least 73 different study locations, turning what was once a theoretical risk into a documented, present-day toll. Calling climate change harmless in the face of those numbers is not just a different framing. It denies a specific, measured cause of death.
Future heat will not simply replace cold
Some defenders of Trump’s line argue that warmer winters will be good for health and that extra heat deaths will be offset by fewer people dying from cold. That claim may sound reasonable at first, but it does not match projections from public health agencies that study climate impacts. A detailed assessment by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found in its report on regional climate health, models how temperature-related deaths could change in different parts of the United States as the planet warms.
According to that report, with continued warming, cold-related deaths are expected to go down, but heat-related deaths are projected to go up, and the two trends do not balance each other. In one scenario described by the CDC, heat could contribute to an extra 698 deaths per year in certain U.S. regions by mid-century, while cold deaths fall by a smaller amount. The same document notes that more than 2,249 counties face rising risks from extreme heat, showing that the burden is wide as well as deep. The report treats heat as a growing health strain that adds to existing pressure on hospitals, emergency services and vulnerable communities, rather than something that simply swaps places with cold.
Climate and the spread of vector-borne disease
Heat is only part of the story. As temperatures and rainfall patterns change, so do the insects and other animals that carry disease. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains on its page about vector-borne diseases that climate is one of several factors affecting these illnesses. The agency notes that temperature, rainfall and humidity affect how ticks, mosquitoes and other vectors survive, reproduce and come into contact with people. In practice, a warming climate can change where and when disease-carrying species can thrive.
The CDC describes how climate change can help shift the range of diseases such as Lyme, West Nile virus and dengue. As conditions become suitable in new areas, vectors can move into regions whose residents and health systems are not prepared for them. In one summary, the agency notes that reported tick-borne disease cases rose by more than 33% over a recent decade, with climate listed as one factor among many. Another CDC overview highlights that at least 33 states have seen local transmission of West Nile virus in recent years, showing how far a once-limited disease can spread. Climate is not the only driver, but it is part of the chain that opens the door to new outbreaks, which makes the label “harmless” misleading.
Why “harmless” rhetoric distorts public risk
When Trump dismisses climate change as harmless, he is not only expressing doubt about global agreements or computer simulations. He is contradicting specific findings that link human-caused warming to measurable health harms, such as the 37.0% share of warm-season heat deaths attributed to climate change in the Nature Climate Change study. That rhetoric can shape how people understand danger. It can encourage them to treat extreme heat as bad luck or a one-off event, rather than as part of a pattern that calls for stronger policy and personal protection.
Public health experts have noted that this pattern of denial echoes earlier fights over tobacco, when industry-backed voices questioned evidence that smoking caused lung cancer long after epidemiologists had drawn that link. In the same way, the CDC’s regional climate report and its analysis of vector-borne disease already describe a world where heat deaths are expected to rise and disease ranges are shifting with the climate. The regional report points out that at least 33 states face multiple climate-related health threats at once, while some coastal areas may see more than 033 extra heat-related emergency room visits per 100,000 people in very hot years. Public figures who call that trajectory harmless are not simply offering a different forecast. They are pushing back against evidence about what is happening now.
Rethinking what counts as climate harm
Part of the problem is that climate harm is often framed as property damage from storms or slow sea level rise, rather than as a direct health issue. That narrow view can make it easier for politicians to shrug off the threat, because flooded roads or damaged buildings seem like infrastructure problems that can be fixed later. The quantified attribution of heat-related deaths to human-driven climate change across dozens of countries, as shown in the Nature Climate Change study, challenges that view by tying climate directly to death certificates and hospital records.
Similarly, the CDC’s statements that climate is one factor affecting vector-borne diseases, and that it influences where those diseases can spread, force a broader definition of harm. When warming helps ticks or mosquitoes reach new communities, the effect is not just ecological. It shows up in clinics, pharmacies and public health budgets. The CDC’s projections that cold-related deaths are expected to decrease while heat-related deaths are projected to increase, and that more than 033 million people could face higher heat risk in some scenarios, suggest that the health impacts of climate change will not cancel out neatly. They will require more planning, more resources and clearer communication about the risks. Calling that path harmless does not change the data. It only makes it harder for the public to see what is already happening around them.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
